Americans Expect Their Presidents To Get Things Done

Americans Expect Their Presidents To Get Things Done To Solve Problem

Americans expect their presidents to get things done, to solve problems, to govern effectively, and to be strong leaders. The framers of the Constitution did not envision such presidential leadership. A scholar of the presidency points out that Article II of the Constitution gives the president scant formal power to influence congressional policy-making (Simon, n.d.). He also notes that the framers intentionally designed a process for selecting presidents that would minimize their political power – the Electoral College. They hoped this institution would insulate the chief executive from the public because they feared the power of presidents who might be elected by the people.

Therefore, the Constitution provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." Having state legislatures "appoint" the Electors who select the chief executive would minimize the president's capacity to lead on the basis of his popular support. In a very real sense, the president would not be accountable to the people but rather to the state legislatures who appoint Electors. This procedure was also seen as a way to encourage the selection of statesmen with "characters preeminent for ability and virtue" rather than mere politicians with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” (Hamilton, 1788).

The practice of state legislatures appointing Electors continued for many years. Most American history texts do not report national presidential vote totals before 1824 because 25% of the states were still not holding presidential elections by that year. Even as late as 1876, the state of Colorado's legislature appointed Electors. As states moved away from legislative appointment to the current system of allowing a state's Electors to be chosen by a winner-take-all popular vote, the primary rationale for the Electoral College was forgotten in history. At the same time, public expectations of strong presidential leadership were rising.

This creates a problem well illustrated by the disputed election of 2000. George W. Bush was elected president with 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 266 electoral votes. However, Gore amassed 543,895 popular votes more than Bush. Also, because some disputed votes in Florida made unclear which candidate should receive the state's electoral votes, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a full recount of the Florida vote.

But the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and stopped the recount, thereby in effect awarding Florida's electoral votes to Bush. While arguments continue to this day about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention, the 2000 election illustrates a glaring weakness of the Electoral College system – selecting a president whose authority may be diminished by the dubious circumstances of his or her election. The election of 2000 also has fueled a long ongoing debate about whether the Electoral College should be abandoned in favor of a method which insures that the candidate elected has the most popular votes. Would this outcome be more consistent with contemporary public expectations about the president's role as a national leader who can get things done?

Paper For Above instruction

The American political system has long grappled with the paradox of presidential power versus public expectation. While the Constitution explicitly limits the formal powers of the President of the United States, the American people have come to expect a leader who is proactive, decisive, and capable of addressing pressing issues efficiently. This expectation often clashes with the original intent of the framers and the structural limitations embedded within the constitutional design, notably the Electoral College.

The constitutional framers, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers, envisioned a system designed to curb potential overreach by the executive branch and to ensure a deliberative selection process. The Electoral College was conceived partly as a safeguard to insulate the presidency from popular passions and the volatility of direct democracy (Hamilton, 1788). By entrusting election to electors chosen by state legislatures, they believed they could select individuals with "ability and virtue," rather than mere popularity. This design aimed to promote a form of leadership rooted in capability and discernment rather than transient public opinion.

However, over time, the rationale for such insulation has eroded. The gradual transition from legislatures appointing Electors to states implementing winner-take-all votes has shifted the source of legitimacy from parliamentary deliberation to popular approval. As a consequence, the expectation that presidents would serve as strong, responsive leaders grew, especially in the context of the expanding federal scope and societal demands for effective governance. This evolution led to an increasing disconnect between the constitutional framework and public expectations for presidential leadership.

The case of the 2000 election epitomizes the tension within the Electoral College system. Despite losing the popular vote, George W. Bush secured the presidency through the electoral votes allocated by Florida’s disputed recount—an act ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 2000). This paradoxical outcome fueled debates about the legitimacy and functionality of the Electoral College, with critics arguing that it undermines the principle of "one person, one vote" and diminishes the presidency's democratic legitimacy. Such controversies amplify calls for reform, including moving towards a direct popular vote system, which many believe would better align with contemporary expectations for a president capable of decisive action and national leadership.

Reforming the electoral system to favor a direct vote could also mitigate issues arising from the disproportionate influence of certain states, like those with small populations that hold sway in the Electoral College. Advocates argue that a direct election would promote a more equitable and accountable presidency, responding directly to the will of the majority (Altman, 2019). Additionally, it would reduce the chances of election outcomes decided by court interventions or electoral college manipulations, fostering greater transparency and legitimacy.

Nevertheless, moving away from the Electoral College entails complex constitutional and political challenges. Critics suggest that the current system encourages presidential campaigns to focus on swing states, thus creating a disproportionate emphasis on regional interests instead of national issues (Fiorina, 2005). Moreover, some argue that the Electoral College serves as a safeguard against populist candidates and promotes stability by requiring broad geographic support (Berry et al., 2014). These debates reflect a broader tension between tradition and innovation in American electoral practices.

In conclusion, while the Constitution initially aimed to limit presidential power and insulate it from popular influence, contemporary expectations for effective and decisive leadership have exerted pressure for electoral reform. The 2000 election illustrated the shortcomings of the Electoral College as a representative mechanism and highlighted the need to reconcile constitutional structures with public demands. Ultimately, any reform should strive to balance democratic legitimacy, effective governance, and the original intent of the framers to maintain stability and virtue in the presidency.

References

• Altman, D. (2019). The case for abolishing the Electoral College. Journal of Electoral Studies, 65, 145-155.
• Berry, W., Burden, B., Forde, S., Franklin, C., & Smith, S. (2014). The American electoral process. Routledge.
• Fiorina, M. P. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. Longman.
• Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 68. In The Federalist Papers. University of California Press.
• Simon, B. (n.d.). The Presidency and Its Politics. In The American Presidency. Oxford University Press.
• United States Supreme Court. (2000). Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98.